Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde

It wasn't irrelevant. Dogssup specifically raised the issue that there are two contentions (Personal Consent and Legal Consent). I argued against both of his points and went ignored. As far as why animal consent matters is because, if they can't, it's rape. As dogs and cats are raised for companionship, it's safe to assume the position that raping your dog would be against the law for the same reasons that raping your spouse is against the law.

There's no need to assume, or try to speculate whether rape applies to animals by looking at other crimes against animals. A simple question would suffice to determine if rape laws (and thus legal consent) apply to animals:

In cases where bestiality is illegal, what law is used to prosecute zoophiles? Animal cruelty laws? Specific laws against obscene sexual acts? Or rape laws?

If the laws that criminalise animal sex are the former two, then it is clear and indisputable that legal consent does not apply to animals.

The entire concept of legal consent applying to animals was ridiculous to begin with. Firstly, as Bionic pointed out, animals aren't moral agents. Secondly, animals have different life spans compared to humans.

(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General [1] knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General [1] knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General [1] knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

I hope I don't have to cite a definition of "person" to show that it does not include animals. So, just concede the point on rape/legal consent already and we can move on to other arguments.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde

LIBERTY, Missouri (AP) -- A man was arrested Tuesday for allegedly burning a kitten on a barbecue grill as several other people stood around and watched in amusement.

A simple question would suffice to determine if rape laws (and thus legal consent) apply to animals:
In cases where bestiality is illegal, what law is used to prosecute zoophiles? Animal cruelty laws? Specific laws against obscene sexual acts? Or rape laws?

Thirty states have made "sexual assault of an animal" (bestiality or zoophilia) a specific crime, and it is considered a "sex crime", rather than just "animal cruelty", or an "obscene sexual act".

"Touching or contacting, or causing an object, or another person, to touch or contact, the mouth, anus, or sex organs of an animal, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person."

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

I agree with that the OP when he reminds us that animals are not children. As far as I can tell (I admit I have not read through this whole thread even though I should) the thread is about whether animals can consent to sex. Whether that is immoral or moral is debatable and should be reserved for another topic entirely. Animals can clearly consent to sex. Sex with animals is not inherently abusive.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

This is ridiculous.
A human can consent to another human with different beliefs.

Which was heartily implied by yours truly, indicating the absurdity of your strong definition of the word consent. You see, I used sarcasm to make my point stronger. It is not entirely different from how you take my thoughts out of context to make your point seem stronger.

You are implying that no physical resistance equals consent, which is not the case.

Not even possible to be further from the point. I was responding to your claim that animals can not deny consent by offering a human using a very non-human means to convey that I do not have consent to touch her.

That's true, but it's deception, not sexual assault.

By your definition it is non-consensual, and I want to know who the rapist is. You never once answered any of those questions indicated for you in bold and red.

How can we POSSIBLY know what the dog's personal desire is, unless we can read it's mind?

There is no way to determine what an animal is thinking!.....

Really? No possible way? But that sounds like... my point! Read the supplemental story and tell me who the rapist is.

Animals are perfectly capable of functioning within the context of their SAME SPECIES social groups, and with other species of non-human animals.

But they cannot interact on the same level with human beings.

Are you seriously trying to say there is no such thing as a disobedient domestic canine?

I feel pretty much obligated to award you my first negative rep.

You took my words out of context by ignoring anything compelling.You Drew strange and exotic conclusions from obvious processions.You even avoided my direct questions, emboldened and highlighted in red.You do not support bizarre, outlandish claims.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

They are not... since when were dogs thoughtless?

Dogs are not thoughtless, but they are unable to express their thoughts verbally.
If we are defining consent, as it is posted in the OP, the two participating parties must first be aware of each other's thoughts.

Human beings have the ability to express personal thoughts verbally.
Animals do not.
So animals cannot truly give consent, as defined in the OP.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

You never once answered any of those questions indicated for you in bold and red.

I did answer your questions, by responding that the scenarios you listed were cases of one human being deceiving another, and were not sexual assaults.

To answer your questions in the way you requested: NO ONE was the rapist.....

You took my words out of context by ignoring anything compelling.
A matter of opinion, which I disagree with.

You Drew strange and exotic conclusions from obvious processions.
Not sure what you are referring to, but again this is a matter of opinion, which I disagree with.

You even avoided my direct questions, emboldened and highlighted in red.
I most certainly did not avoid your questions.

You do not support bizarre, outlandish claims.
What, exactly do you mean by this?

Do you believe that I SHOULD BE supporting bizarre, outlandish claims?

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

By your definition it is non-consensual, and I want to know who the rapist is.

I know where you are trying to go with this, and your comparisions are not equitable.

By using the term "non-consensual" in referring to the scenarios between two humans, you are referring to the fact that these human beings voluntarily CHOSE to conceal their thoughts from their sex partner.

As far as I can tell (I admit I have not read through this whole thread even though I should) the thread is about whether animals can consent to sex. Whether that is immoral or moral is debatable and should be reserved for another topic entirely. Animals can clearly consent to sex. Sex with animals is not inherently abusive.

Personal consent has A LOT to do with the morality, or immorality of a particular action, since consenting involves more than one individual.

If an individual cannot, or does not, consent to what you are doing to them, what you are doing could be immoral, and a violation of said individual's rights.

If said individual is capable of personal consent, by virtue of being a moral agent, and does consent to what you are doing to them, then you are not violating their rights.

Originally Posted by c0ityushep

Sex with animals is not inherently abusive.

Having sex with a sentient being, who may not want said sex, and that cannot verbally express it's thoughts, or ask for help from anyone, is abuse....

Last edited by Scarlett44; April 28th, 2008 at 12:17 PM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

–verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

There is no mention of verbal agreement.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Since when are thoughts considered verbal?

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

They are not... since when were dogs thoughtless?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Dogs are not thoughtless, but they are unable to express their thoughts verbally.

*

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

If we are defining consent, as it is posted in the OP, the two participating parties must first be aware of each other's thoughts.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

Some people will use sex for personal gain, and manipulate the victim into thinking they are in "love." The former has an entirely different view about the sex, why its happening, and what it means. Who is the rapist?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

To answer your questions in the way you requested: NO ONE was the rapist.....

*

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

I know where you are trying to go with this, and your comparisions are not equitable.
By using the term "non-consensual" in referring to the scenarios between two humans, you are referring to the fact that these human beings voluntarily CHOSE to conceal their thoughts from their sex partner.
Knowingly choosing to conceal one's thoughts, intentions, and/or actions, is called DECEPTION.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

I would say that even if the dog is not interested in the sex, and is submitting, it could still be consensual if the dog has a personal desire to make his owner happy.

*

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

To again answer your question as requested: NO ONE was the rapist.

Originally Posted by OP

2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Definitions of sentiment, opinion, and harmony:
~~sentiment:(noun) A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based on emotion, instead of reason.
~~opinion:(noun) A belief or conclusion, held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
~~harmony:(noun) Agreement in feeling or opinion.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

This surpasses blurring the line, utterly obliterating it into nothingness. In the realm of humans, a republican can not consent to make love to a democrat? A Christian, a Muslim? A pessimist and an optimist? A paraplegic and an acrobat?
As far as conclusions? I am rarely satisfied as easily as my partner Who is the rapist?

*

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Either you don't know, or choose to ignore, the fact that animals can never interact intellectually ON AN EQUAL LEVEL with human beings.
Humans are always going to have an intellectual advantage over non-human animals.
With their own species, and many other non-human species, animals CAN interact on the same intellectual level; with humans, they CANNOT.

Originally Posted by OP

1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield

*

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Human beings have the ability to express personal thoughts verbally.
Animals do not.
So animals cannot truly give consent, as defined in the OP.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

The animal has NO ABILITY AT ALL to express things in a verbal manner, even if it desired to do so.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Conscious choice to conceal thoughts that could be verbally expressed, DOES NOT EQUAL a total inability to express thoughts verbally.

Originally Posted by OP

–verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

There is no mention of verbal agreement.

*

Guys, that was more work than it looks like.

Conclusion:
You chose the archaic version of consent (which leaves most everyone who has had intercourse a rapist) to defend your position. You ignore the current version used to describe consent by the law which rape is defined. I attempted to illustrate the folly through metaphor. Even using the outdated definition, an animal is fully capable of consenting.
You convinced me that it might be more difficult to determine if consent was or was not given when we do not define it in a legal manner.

-----------------------
PS. I am sorry, I simply could not omit this.

You do not support bizarre, outlandish claims.
What, exactly do you mean by this?

Madam, what else could I have meant? You had four excellent hints as to what claim I was indicating:
It was bizarre.
It was outlandish.
It was unsupported.

It was ****ing color-coded.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

I did not choose the definition...... It was the definition that was posted in the OP.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

You convinced me that it might be more difficult to determine if consent was or was not given when we do not define it in a legal manner.

In thirty states, "sexual assault of an animal", is now listed as a sex crime.
So, in those states, an animal cannot even give legal consent.

See my previous post, that I quoted below.

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

You had four excellent hints as to what claim I was indicating:
It was bizarre.
It was outlandish.
It was unsupported.
It was **** color-coded

Go ahead and call me a doddering idiot, but PLEASE just say what you mean, insteading of making all these wise*ss comments.....
Why is it so difficult for you, to just come out and say it clearly and succinctly?

I would still like very much to know, what claim you are referring to.....

"Touching or contacting, or causing an object, or another person, to touch or contact, the mouth, anus, or sex organs of an animal, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person."

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

I did not choose the definition...... It was the definition that was posted in the OP.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

This is the definition of consent that was posted in the OP:
consent:
–verb (used without object)
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.

Definitions of sentiment, opinion, and harmony:
~~sentiment:(noun) A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based on emotion, instead of reason.
~~opinion:(noun) A belief or conclusion, held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
~~harmony:(noun) Agreement in feeling or opinion.

It would appear obvious that you put emphasis on the secondary definition, which was clearly labeled as archaic.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Thirty states have made "sexual assault of an animal" (bestiality or zoophilia) a specific crime, and it is considered a "sex crime", rather than just "animal cruelty", or an "obscene sexual act".

"Touching or contacting, or causing an object, or another person, to touch or contact, the mouth, anus, or sex organs of an animal, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person."

(Page 18-19 of PDF Document-under the heading of "Sexual Assault Of An Animal")

So it is considered "sexual assault", meaning that it would be in the same category as "rape", concerning the "legal consent" issue (in the above listed states).
Conclusion: In some states, animals CANNOT legally consent..

It is important to note that "rape" is a category of "sexual assault," and not the other way around. Rape is sexual assault in the first degree, and carries a hefty sentence. According to the document you provide, the maximum penalty for any of those crimes is 5 years, even in instances of repeat offenders.

Also, the law you describe is blind to a matter of consent, it simply makes the act a crime. Murder is a crime with or without consent because of the same legislative disinterest in if the act was agreed on. The document you provide states that the laws were originally put into action under general "crimes against nature" statutes. About half a century ago these fell out of favor as they were inevitably deemed unconstitutionally vague.

Nothing in the entire document mentions consent, because that was not the issue that allowed the law to come to pass.

I would still like very much to know, what claim you are referring to.....

What claim of mine was unsupported?

My faith in humanity... At the moment...

It physically hurts.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Wow... Kudos to who ever started this thread. I'm impressed it's still going on.

My $0.02... Has anyone discussed informed consent? I'm sure someone has pointed out that minors have all the abilities described in the opening post and more, yet we have ruled as a society that they cannot legally consent to sex. Why should we let animals? Aren't most of them underage anyway?

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

I'll be happy to support my claim, if you will tell me what claim you are referring to.
What's so difficult about that?

Sorry I neglected to do this sooner, I went back and color coded the post for you. Hope that makes things easier, the one in orange is the claim I refer to.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Oh, please!!.....Would you like some cheese with that whine?.......

Cease and desist with the dramatics, and get over it, for pete's sake.

Stop ignoring my claims that threaten your position.

I am not condoning interspecies relations, but the claim that an animal is unable to consent [to permit, approve, or agree in sentiment and be in harmony] is positively ludicrous. Certainly, an animal can be taken advantage of, but that has no bearing on their ability to consent.

You lack the ground from which to form a stance.

Last edited by BionicSeahorse; May 1st, 2008 at 02:14 PM.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by Zhavric

My $0.02... Has anyone discussed informed consent? I'm sure someone has pointed out that minors have all the abilities described in the opening post and more, yet we have ruled as a society that they cannot legally consent to sex. Why should we let animals? Aren't most of them underage anyway?

I think the OP wishes to discuss the ability to consent, not the legal ability, regardless...

Well, children are able to consent to the action, but because they might not understand the implications (pregnancy, future social relations) they are protected by law. I was a "victim" of statutory rape when I was young, but I consented, am unable to bear children, and bragged about it to my friends. It being "rape" from a legal perspective did not translate to it being harmful or negative for me.

But what someone wishes to do (peacefully) with their own pet will most certainly not result in pregnancy or some social stigma ("The other dogs think I'm a whore!").

Now, I would agree whole-heartedly with prosecuting some stranger who has intercourse with your dog, even if the dog wanted/enjoyed it.
Legally speaking, pets are property. That guy probably owes you money.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

I wonder if Scarlett44 agree's with Animals having sex with humans in the sence that a male dog would penetrate a female human (which does happen). Because they are still having sex but obviosly a Human can give consent in the way she believes it. And if thats allowed then why cant it be the other way round....

But on the subject of the thread... I see it simply to be if the dog was being Hurt, it would react, in a negative way. Which means it must enjoy whats happening or feel no way about it. So it is giving consent because it either enjoy's it, or doesnt mind it.

I also have seen Scarlett44 say she has seen damages to the dog. But i dont think this happens to every dog that gets engaged in sexual practices with a human (If you ask me 2 provide evidence... I wont be able to, because, Where will i find evidence for that lol) I just believe these people are obviosly dog/animal lovers there4 if they were hurting the dog internally they would have 2 stop because irreversable harm could come to the dog, which they would never want. So for the dogs that dont get harmed, seem to enjoy having it done to them/or doing it... Isnt that giving consent?

Oh this is just my little contribution to this thread... Which has been great so far!

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

~Animals are perfectly capable of functioning within the context of their same species social groups

AND

~Animals cannot interact on the same level, with human beings.
(Meaning that animals communicate better with those of their own species, than they do with human beings)

Almost, sweetheart, good job.
Just so were clear, what I want you support is this
Animals are perfectly capable of functioning within the context of their SAME SPECIES social groups, and with other species of non-human animals.

But they cannot interact on the same level with human beings.

When you change the context, you change the claim.

Common sense would tell most people that canines can communicate better with other canines, than they can with human beings.

I have found in my life that "common sense" is none to common and often not applied sensibly. We may have different versions, is all.

But if you insist on chapter and verse, fine with me..

Could prove interesting, and certainly does not affect my position...
I insist.

I'm not sure what claims you are referring to, but no one "threatens positions" on this site.

It doesn't really work that way....

You take the position that dogs are unable to consent.
I provide claims indicating dogs are able to consent.
You ignore said claims.
Debate does not happen.
We concentrate solely on impertinent distractions because you have nothing to support your position.

To make things simple for you.

Claim: A dog is able to consent [to permit, approve, or agree in sentiment and be in harmony] with the actions of its owner, sexual or not. Said dog is also able to express a lack of consent clearly, if it so desires.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

One thing that I want to address was that on one of these posts it was stated that a human having sexual relations with an animal is “natural”. Um, it is most certainly not natural. If it was than humans would have the ability to reproduce with dogs. Sex believe it or not is not meant for just pleasure but to reproduce. If you cannot reproduce with said animal than I don’t think it’s mother nature’s way.

Also the statement that if a dog humps you or has an erection than they must want to have sex with you is a false assessment in my eyes simply because usually when male dogs hump things other than female dogs in heat is to either show dominance or because there is a lack of female dogs around.

As for the erection argument, who’s to say that they actually want the erection?? Take human males for example. Human males can definitely get erections but I have heard testimony from them that a lot of the erections that they get they don’t want. Is it a possibility that this could be the case for male dogs as well?

Now for the question of the thread. Can an animal truly give consent to having sex? Really, all we have to go by is body language. Otherwise you have nothing to go by. For me that is just not enough proof. As has been mentioned multiple times, animals simply cannot give a verbal consent. It is simply impossible. Unless there is an invention that can translate an animal’s sounds to a human language it will stay that way.

Until then we really just get one side of the story and that one side could be lying or be blind to the fact that what they are doing is just cruel. A perfect example of this is the article that Scarlett44 posted.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

In fact, one case in particular seems to indicate that the owner and perpetrator truly cared about his two dobermans:
The owner of the dogs, who had also sodomized them, said,
"I love the dogs very much. I've had the male for about two years, and the female for about six months. I've had animals since I was a little boy."

This man obviously must of thought that he was a zoophile and doggsup reputed by saying that this wasn’t a “true” zoophile. That he was a mere beastialist. Well then this rises the question ‘How many people are like this that claim that they are a zoophile or fit the profile of a zoophile but in fact are just being cruel and inhumane to their animals?’

You may say that this is just one little example. The thing is that if there is one example than there is bound to be more and most won't reach the news anyway.

Last edited by Sapphire Moon; May 2nd, 2008 at 01:17 PM.

Just to let you know, I love playing devil's advocate.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

I know I may not be the smartest person in the world but don't call me stupid just because I disagree with you.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by Sapphire Moon

As for the erection argument, who’s to say that they actually want the erection?? Take human males for example. Human males can definitely get erections but I have heard testimony from them that a lot of the erections that they get they don’t want. Is it a possibility that this could be the case for male dogs as well?

It is a good point, the no-reason-boner is all part of the masculine mystique.

Now for the question of the thread. Can an animal truly give consent to having sex? Really, all we have to go by is body language. Otherwise you have nothing to go by. For me that is just not enough proof. As has been mentioned multiple times, animals simply cannot give a verbal consent. It is simply impossible. Unless there is an invention that can translate an animal’s sounds to a human language it will stay that way.

Why is verbal so important to people with this stance? How is it impossible to permit, approve, or agree using body language? To comply or yield? To disengage? Escape? Attack? Cower?

This man obviously must of thought that he was a zoophile and doggsup reputed by saying that this wasn’t a “true” zoophile. That he was a mere beastialist. Well then this rises the question ‘How many people are like this that claim that they are a zoophile or fit the profile of a zoophile but in fact are just being cruel and inhumane to their animals?’

Did you notice he was charged with sodomy, not animal cruelty? The article is very particular on that point. Given the situation, had the sodomy laws (unconstitutional homophobia) not been enacted, he would have committed no crime.

I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after Rep.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

Just so were clear, what I want you support is this:

Animals are perfectly capable of functioning within the context of their SAME SPECIES social groups, and with other species of non-human animals.
But they cannot interact on the same level, with human beings.

Animals can communicate functionally (exchange information) with members of their own species, and other non-human animals, using chemical substances called pheremones.

Animals are pre-adapted to detect chemical signals in their environment, and this information can be used to locate food sources, detect predators, and contribute to social interaction between animals.

This chemical information is received through the olfactory system, and to a lesser degree, through the taste buds.

Human beings can also receive chemical information, but cannot perceive odors with the same accuracy as animals.

The dog, for example, has 220 million olfactory receptor cells, while human beings only have about 5 million.
Dogs also have a larger olfactory processing capacity.
In fact, it could be said that the dogs ability to smell compares to ours, as our power of reasoning compares to his.

In other words, two dogs can very effectively exchange chemical information about each other, that would be undetectable to a human being.

All animals, including humans, can communicate (exchange information) with each other,
but only human beings use language.

In human language, words represent tens of thousands of abstract concepts that help us think beyond the here and now.
We can discuss the past, the future, and things that exist only in our imagination.

True language involves more than just exchanging information.
It involves symbols, words, and syntax.

Some animals can make sounds and gestures, with symbolic meaning, but they cannot combine symbols to generate unlimited new meanings, as humans can.

Therefore, animals cannot communicate and interact on the same level with a human being.

Now that we have that out of the way, I can address the claim:

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

Claim: A dog is able to consent [to permit, approve, or agree in sentiment and be in harmony] with the actions of its owner, sexual or not. Said dog is also able to express a lack of consent clearly, if it so desires.

I say again, as I did previously, lack of resistance does not equal consent.

Just because an animal does not protest outwardly, in a physical manner, does that mean that they truly consent?

A dog cannot tell us what it's point of view is, regarding a human being that sexually assaulted it.
Neither can it ask for help from anyone, because it cannot speak.

Additionally, the average dog has the cognitive abilities of a 2-3 year old child, as I mentioned before.

Let's disregard Legal consent for a moment, and only consider personal consent with the following scenario:

Keeping this in mind, a normal adult human having sex with a dog, is comparable to said adult human, having sex with a profoundly retarded, sexually mature person, who has the mind of a three year old.

Oh, and also that retarded person is mute, and cannot read or write.....

But, they did not resist physically, therefore, the normal adult believed that they consented, so it was ethically okay to have sex with them.

If we believe something to be true, does that make it true?
I don't really think so....

If we believe that an animal has consented, because they do not bite or struggle, that does not mean that said animal has consented...

If a normal adult human, molesting a sexually mature, profoundly retarded, mute person, seems morally and ethically WRONG to you, even though the retarded person offered no resistance,

why it is okay to sexually assault an animal, who offers no resistance?

I posed this question to dogssup, but he did not really address it....

Last edited by Scarlett44; May 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 AM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Sex believe it or not is not meant for just pleasure but to reproduce. If you cannot reproduce with said animal than I don’t think it’s mother nature’s way.

This is a topic for a different thread, and I HIGLY disagree, sex is NOT just for reproduction...if it was our reproduction rate would go down, because mother nature would have made us evolve and slow down our reproduction because we already have too many humans on this earth as it is.

Re: Animals *can* consent to sex

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Animals can communicate functionally (exchange information) with members of their own species, and other non-human animals, using chemical substances called pheremones.

Communication in this respect is entirely accidental. There is no "conversation" or "opinions" being transmitted.
The sort of conclusions a dog would draw from things like this depend greatly on what he associated the smells with at a younger age. Some "scent communication" may be instinctual (smell perception allows a dog to know when a female is in heat), but does not apply as communication anymore than assessing the visual aspect of a painting within your own mind.

It is an observational method to learn about the environment, not a conscious effort to transfer information.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Animals are pre-adapted to detect chemical signals in their environment, and this information can be used to locate food sources, detect predators, and contribute to social interaction between animals.

Baffled in bold.
I will assume for now you are talking about instincts, and try to explain this inadequate "communication."
You describe situations where observations are gathered and contribute towards survival (therefore, more chance to make babies). Naturally, after a long period of time these abilities would become more common to a population.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

This chemical information is received through the olfactory system, and to a lesser degree, through the taste buds.

Which is another excellent reason why this applies poorly. Only in the broadest sense is me looking at a tree considered communication, in that I am receiving input to cognate. This is similar in smell and taste, only when it involves other living things you "bump" the definition of communication up to appear as if the information transfered was intentional.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Human beings can also receive chemical information, but cannot perceive odors with the same accuracy as animals.

The dog, for example, has 220 million olfactory receptor cells, while human beings only have about 5 million.
Dogs also have a larger olfactory processing capacity.In fact, it could be said that the dogs ability to smell compares to ours, as our power of reasoning compares to his.

Care to support this?
If not, would you please explain how it impacts our discussion if it was true.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

In other words, two dogs can very effectively exchange chemical information about each other, that would be undetectable to a human being.

This is all unintentional communication, it is observation.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

True language involves more than just exchanging information.
It involves symbols, words, and syntax.

Which serves to put dogs, non-dogs, and humans on the same band of "not truly communicating."
We are in agreement.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Some animals can make sounds and gestures, with symbolic meaning, but they cannot combine symbols to generate unlimited new meanings, as humans can.

This would need support, there is no reason to assume they do not assign their own symbols, but fail to articulate them in a way we understand.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Therefore, animals cannot communicate and interact on the same level with a human being.

I am going to assume you meant "on the same level as..." I speak English, and only English. If I were to go to Japan, that would not stop me from interacting with people who did not speak English. Granted, if I had something important or specific that needed to be done, I would be in some trouble.
However, there is the language-barrier-hook-up. I would be perfectly able to go to a bar and flirt with some ladies. I could express my interest in them using only body language such as facial expressions, proximity, posturing, or touching. Now, she may not be comfortable with not knowing me (and being unable to communicate with me) and needs a way to convey that. She may originally rely on angrily spewing nonsense at me for daring approach her, but the actual content of the message is lost in lack of translation. There are other options, she may physically distance herself from me, ignore me, or use force to remove me from her personal space.
Alternatively, flirting goes on, we end up in a hotel room, she begins to undress...
Do you claim I have no clue if she really wants to have sex or not because there was no successful verbal communication?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Now that we have that out of the way, I can address the claim:
I say again, as I did previously, lack of resistance does not equal consent.

I say again, as I did previously, that this is a straw man fallacy. However, according to the definition in the OP a lack of resistance would equal consent. Though I think it implied that it is a conscious lack of resistance.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Just because an animal does not protest outwardly, in a physical manner, does that mean that they truly consent?

Yes, according to the OP, they have consented (even if they would have rather not had sex -- think sex used for personal gain) .
You ignore possibilities that are not consistent with your beliefs, such as an animal initiating the interspecies act. You seem to assume that every instance involves a human getting horny, grabbing their dog, and going to town on them while ignoring their struggling.
Why this scenario is the only one you focus on is strange to me.

It is actually mildly disturbing, if you think about it.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

A dog cannot tell us what it's point of view is, regarding a human being that sexually assaulted it.
Neither can it ask for help from anyone, because it cannot speak.

Additionally, the average dog has the cognitive abilities of a 2-3 year old child, as I mentioned before.

It can not tell us, verbally. Granted, there are dogs who are victims who are consenting to sex that is abusive and damaging. They are still definitively consenting. Situations like these do not mean that every case of zoophilia involves an abusive master and a submissive pet.

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Let's disregard Legal consent for a moment, and only consider personal consent with the following scenario:

Keeping this in mind, a normal adult human having sex with a dog, is comparable to said adult human, having sex with a profoundly retarded, sexually mature person, who has the mind of a three year old.

There are many problems with your premise.
A normal adult is having sex with a dog. I do not accept that these activities are undertaken by "normal" people. Unimportant.
How is it comparable? That is inane.
Retarded people can not have consensual sex?
Re-written: We have laws against the mentally handicapped getting laid?

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

Oh, and also that retarded person is mute, and cannot read or write.....

But, they did not resist physically, therefore, the normal adult believed that they consented, so it was ethically okay to have sex with them.

If we believe something to be true, does that make it true?
I don't really think so....

Well according to the OP, they consented. But to be specific would involve the other party practicing absolute honesty. Whether he tells or not, the one interacting with the mentally handicapped will be aware of using deceit or force to get what they want. If they had used those tools, I would form the opinion that it was not truly consensual (morally speaking).

Originally Posted by Scarlett44

If we believe that an animal has consented, because they do not bite or struggle, that does not mean that said animal has consented...

If a normal adult human, molesting a sexually mature, profoundly retarded, mute person, seems morally and ethically WRONG to you, even though the retarded person offered no resistance,

why it is okay to sexually assault an animal, who offers no resistance?

I posed this question to dogssup, but he did not really address it....

Once more, according to the definition, they have consented by not offering resistance (granted, not offering resistance could be a learned response). Perhaps the animal uses an insubstantial amount of resistance, and the sex still occurs: It is obvious that it was not consensual.
-----

Originally Posted by BionicSeahorse

Claim: A dog is able to consent [to permit, approve, or agree in sentiment and be in harmony] with the actions of its owner, sexual or not. Said dog is also able to express a lack of consent clearly, if it so desires.